Is the issue Metacritic, or is the issue the individual reviewer? And if I have the right to dictate a standard to someone, what's stopping them from dictating to me? In the current modern world of web ads and websites if someone doesn't deserve your attention, don't give it to them. Have a nice day.

Both : Some individual reviewers are not honest, and Meta is doing not that much to improve things; also it's not realistic to think that we all stop giving visibility and attention to these smaller sites by clicking on their link, 'cause often these reviews that massacre an exclusive game from Sony, MS or Nintendo, will be clicked  by many fans of the competitor console and are posted to flout the game in question, just to give an example.

I agree with you that we shouldn't give them attention, but in the end people will continue to click, sadly.

I ike Metacritic, it's just lime IMDB and ROTTEN. Great games are great, bad games are bad and okay games are okay.

There just needs to be some sort of list of requirements made in order to be a part of Metacritic, and then they need to check every website and just get rid of the useless ones.

Now, don't get me wrong.  When a change needs to be made, something needs to be done.  But setting one's standards over another is at best subjective.  Just remember: double-edged sword here.

EDIT: Actually, the best way to tackle this is to create your own website/reviews and start/reinforceing a positive trend.

I think the general idea of what was dicused was lost in translation when this thread was made.

First thing is we dont want to try and enforce our review system upon anybody. Us gathering toghether nd giving an opinion is best when asking for change, because telling a group theres a problem figure it out yourself does not help anybody. It would be best if us and other forums band together and choose a new format to follow, the majority of the public interested in the format, or the reviewers to gather and decide a new format. But a universal standard has to be achived.

We know that even if a new standard is set, clickbait articles will still be dishonest, but the idea was to leave them be dishonest while the new standard makes it easy to know wich are troll reviews. If all else fails this has to be the minimum goal achived. We cannot start demanding metacritic to remove sites cuz at the end of the day some group will have a problem with some site and all sites will be unworthy to be on metacritic.

The perception of the public for a game to be over 80 to be good is a problem and we need to help clarify. 70's should be good for a type of game you like, 80's should be a great score that even if you dont like that type of game, finally games in the 90's shuld be games near perfection that everybody should like, even if its a shooter aand you hate shooters, a game in the 90's should be good to you too. Thats the main problem I think plagues meta's, not low scores, but games with ridiculous high scores. Games that focus on one aspect and disregard the others like focus on gameplay and forget story or viceversa, reviers just give a pass becaue they like what the emphasy was. That should never happen, all it brings is disprobal whe people see a gamen getting a pass on something the did bad then another game getting punish for it.

Some are actually saying that its best to ignore it and they dont care for metacritic. As much as we dont like it, we need something to be the guide, metacritic was chosen by us even if we dint notice and now that its failing us we want to abandon it instead of fixing it. At the rate this is going meta's will die off and with it all reviews. Even if we dont like it, we need tht average, cuz we cannot have any one site do the reviews cuz its only one point of view. I know its not metacritics fault, they only average the results, but they are in the seat of power and they have to either take responsability or quit and let some else try to fix the mess.

There are other problems but Its late for m here and just got home from work, so tomorrow Ill follow my rant

I don't think metacritic deserves all the hate. Some for sure, but blame the review sites mostly. Some of them deliberately make bad reviews to obtain more activity on the site (I.e. 'too much water, etc.).

I don't get everyone's problem with Metacritic. Obviously you stay away from user reviews because of trolls, but the Meta scores seem fine. Just all the scores the game got averaged up, why does everyone hate it?

My way of rating would be

Presentation: It would include all art style, graphics, sound effects, music, voice acting, menus, and anything of the sort.

Story: It would include if the story is any good, how it was told, hidden secrets, discoverys, sidequest, originality and so on.

Performance: Gameplay mecanics, glitches and buugs, framerate, longetivity,

This would be a negativity now but

Content:
Like some games now want to sell you a game by pieces and while not included in the total score, this will be things that cn go in the negative and deduct points. lIKE if the story is to short, micro transactions, day one dlc that could have obvioulsy been included for free doesent matter if its cosmetic like evolve, deductions are necesary. Super expensive season passes, and you get where im going with this.

Obvious I want an average of the 3. Even if reviewers fake it for clicks we would know. Like a game like call of duty should recive praise for its gameplay but punish for its story. The order praise for its presentation but punish for gameplay. Evolve praised for gamplay but punished for content and story.

This would crete a lot of games in the 70's wich ishould be a good game, A few in the 80's that should be great games, and just a rare couple in the 90's that are true gems.

Numeric rating systems are inherently bullshit, especially when compiled across different authors and different genres.

Reviews should be informative in text without having any sort of score at the end. Anything short of that is intellectually dishonest.